9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur, in Miscellaneous Application No. 9/JP/1998 filed by the appellant-Commissioner of Income-tax for rectification of orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 501/JP of 1991 dated May 2, 1997. The present appeal concerns the assessment of income of Murardan Barhat and Company, Gunga, District Barmer. In the income of the assessee-firm originally the income of Mura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onnection with this finding an application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was moved by the Revenue stating that the foundation for holding the aforesaid "Canal Works" firm to be genuine has apparently been recorded on wrong premise inasmuch as in I. T. A. Nos. 1532 and 1533/JP of 1990 the firm has not been held to be genuine. The application has been rejected by the Tribunal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has treated that firm as part and parcel of the assessee-firm and included the income thereof in the income of the respondent-assessee. However, as a protective measure the said firm was also assessed independently as an unregistered firm. The said appeal has arisen out of the aforesaid protective assessment and treating the firm to be unregistered one. While dealing with the submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l with it and reject the same." From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Tribunal has stated as a fact that for the assessment year 1985-86, the lower appellate authority in separate appeal has held that Murardan Barhat and Co., Gunga, (Canal Works) to be a genuine firm. It has also further held that there is no information whether any appeal against that order either has been filed or that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
